This opinion is subject to
further editing and modification.The
final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.

No.2010AP0260-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN:

IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings

Against Peter T. Elliott, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

Complainant,

v.

Peter T. Elliott,

Respondent.

FILED

NOV 3, 2010

A. John Voelker

Acting Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.Attorney's
license revoked.

¶1PER CURIAM. We review the report and
recommendation of the referee, Reserve Judge Timothy L. Vocke, that Attorney
Peter T. Elliott's license to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked; that he be
required to pay restitution to two former clients, a financial institution that
was the victim of his check-kiting scheme, and the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for
Client Protection (the Fund); and that he be required to pay the costs of this
disciplinary proceeding, which were $4,960.72 as of June 1, 2010.

¶2After conducting our review of the matter, we accept the referee's
findings of fact, which were based on the allegations of the complaint filed by
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) due to Attorney Elliott's default.We agree that those facts show that Attorney
Elliott engaged in professional misconduct, as alleged in the 51 counts of the
complaint.We determine that Attorney
Elliott's pattern of deliberately deceitful behavior requires that his license
to practice law in this state be revoked.We further order Attorney Elliott to make restitution payments as
outlined in the referee's report.Finally, we impose the full costs of this proceeding on Attorney
Elliott.

¶3Attorney Elliott was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in 1974.He most recently practiced with a private law
firm in West Allis.On January 13, 2009, this court temporarily
suspended Attorney Elliott's license due to his failure to cooperate with a
number of OLR investigations.His
license was also suspended for non-payment of bar dues and supreme court
assessments, for non-compliance with continuing legal education reporting
requirements, and for non-compliance with the client trust account
certification requirement.His license
remains suspended as of the date of this opinion.

¶4The OLR's formal complaint in this matter was personally served on
Attorney Elliott on February 11, 2010.Attorney Elliott did not file an answer to the complaint.Despite multiple attempts by counsel for the
OLR to contact Attorney Elliott, he did not appear for a scheduling conference
on March 17, 2010.The referee subsequently
granted the OLR's motion for the entry of a default.

¶5Because of the default, the referee accepted all of the factual
allegations of the complaint as his findings of fact.Based on those facts, the referee concluded
that the OLR had established that Attorney Elliott had engaged in 51 separate
acts of professional misconduct.

¶6Given the voluminous nature of the very serious factual findings
against Attorney Elliott, it is not necessary that we repeat all of the
referee's factual findings here.It is
sufficient to provide some summary information and a description of the pattern
that many of Attorney Elliott's misdeeds followed.

¶7The 51 counts of professional misconduct arose out of 12 separate
client representations and Attorney Elliott's handling of his client trust
account and business account.Twelve of
those counts involved Attorney Elliott's failure to hold funds belonging to
clients or third parties in trust and his conversion of those funds for other
purposes.See
SCRs 20:8.4(b),[1]
20:8.4(c),[2]
and 20:1.15(b)(1).[3]Similarly, another ten counts involved
Attorney Elliott's failure to promptly disburse funds to clients or to third
parties who were legally entitled to receive them.See SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).[4]Five counts involved Attorney Elliott's
issuance of checks from his client trust account to himself or his law firm
without identifying the client and matter or the reason for the
disbursement.See SCR
20:1.15(f)(1)e.1.[5]Three counts related to instances when
Attorney Elliott either issued checks from his client trust account made
payable to "cash" or made cash withdrawals from his client trust
account.See
SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.[6]Eight counts involved situations where
Attorney Elliott either failed to provide required information to clients or
failed to respond to a client's request for information or an accounting of
funds.See SCRs 20:1.4(a)(1),[7]
20:1.4(a)(3),[8]
20:1.4(a)(4),[9]
20:1.15(d)(2),[10]
and 20:1.15(g)(1).[11]Finally, eight other counts related to
Attorney Elliott's failure to respond to the OLR's investigations.
SCRs 20:1.15(e)(7),[12]
22.03(2),[13]
and 22.03(6),[14]
enforceable through SCR 20:8.4(h).[15]

¶8A number of the client representations described in the OLR's
complaint and the referee's report followed a similar pattern.Attorney Elliott would be hired by a buyer or
seller in a real estate transaction or by the financial institution that was
lending money to the buyer for the transaction.As a result of his being retained, he would receive substantial sums of
money that he was to hold in trust and then distribute to various parties at
the closing of the transaction.Attorney
Elliott would often receive those funds days or even weeks in advance of the
closing.Before the closing occurred,
Attorney Elliott would improperly disburse some or all of those trust funds to
himself or his law firm, or he would use some or all of those trust funds to
cover payments in other real estate transactions.This would result in there being insufficient
funds in Attorney Elliott's trust account to make the necessary payments at the
time of closing.At times, Attorney
Elliott would issue checks from his trust account for the required closing
payments even though there were insufficient funds to cover those checks, but
he would then stop payment on the checks or those checks would be returned for
insufficient funds.Often, he then had
to make excuses or misrepresentations in order to explain why he had stopped
payment or failed to make a required payment.Ultimately, in order to cover the closing payments he was required to
make, Attorney Elliott would often use client trust funds obtained from other clients
that were supposed to be used for other, future transactions.

¶9In September and October 2008 Attorney Elliott turned to a
check-kiting scheme.He maintained a
business account at Wells Fargo Bank and a client trust account at Associated
Bank.From September 24, 2008, through
October 31, 2008, Attorney Elliott routinely wrote checks out of his Wells
Fargo business account for hundreds of thousands of dollars each, although he
knew the business account did not contain sufficient funds to cover those
checks.[16]He would almost immediately deposit the
checks or the proceeds from the checks into the Associated Bank client trust
account.Before the check written
against the business account would clear, Attorney Elliott would stop payment
on the check.Because of the delay in
processing the transactions, the balance in the trust account would remain
inflated for some period of time.

¶10On some days Attorney Elliott wrote checks or withdrew cash from
his client trust account against the falsely inflated balance in that
account.For example, on October 3,
2008, Attorney Elliott made two cash withdrawals from the trust account
totaling $506,145.06, although the true balance in the trust account was far
less.He used that cash to purchase four
cashier's checks.One of those checks,
in the amount of $350,000.00, was apparently used to repay a personal or
business loan that Attorney Elliott had received from an individual.

¶11Between October 6, 2008, and October 31, 2008, Attorney Elliott
made 50 deposits into his trust account using checks drawn on his business
account for which there were insufficient funds.Each of the business account checks (and
therefore each of the trust account deposits) was subject to a stop payment
order before the check cleared.The
total amount of the 50 deposits over that span of 25 days was $31,236,500.Between October 3, 2008, and October 30,
2008, a total of 15 checks, in the total amount of $50,850, were written from
the trust account payable either to Attorney Elliott or his law firm.None of those 15 checks had any discernible
connection to a client matter.All but
two of the checks were deposited into Attorney Elliott's business account, and
the funds from those checks were used to pay various business expenses.Ultimately, the OLR calculated that Attorney
Elliott used the falsely inflated balance in his trust account to improperly
obtain a total of $942,792.70 from Associated Bank.

¶12Given the number and nature of the violations, the referee strongly
recommended that Attorney Elliott's license to practice law in Wisconsin be
revoked.He commented that he had found
no mitigating factors and that Attorney Elliott's conduct "[had] brought
disrepute not only to himself but to the legal system."

¶13Because no appeal was filed from the referee's report and
recommendation, our review proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).[17]When reviewing a report and recommendation in
an attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings of fact
unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5,
305 Wis. 2d 71,
740 N.W.2d 125.We review the
referee's conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis.Id.Finally, we determine the appropriate level
of discipline given the particular facts of each case, independent of the
referee's recommendation, but benefiting from it.In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45,
660 N.W.2d 686.

¶14In light of Attorney Elliott's default, we accept the referee's findings
of fact.We also agree with the referee
that the facts set forth in the complaint support the legal conclusion that
Attorney Elliott engaged in 51 counts of professional misconduct.

¶15With respect to the level of discipline, we wholeheartedly agree
with the referee's comment that Attorney Elliott is not fit to be licensed as a
lawyer in the state of Wisconsin.He engaged in a lengthy pattern of converting
for his own benefit client or third party funds that had been entrusted to
him.He used trust account funds from
one client to cover his misappropriation of funds from another client.He even resorted to a multi-million dollar
check-kiting scheme to continue his theft of others' money.When asked for information by the OLR,
Attorney Elliott merely stonewalled and never provided a response.Clearly, the only appropriate discipline for
such misconduct is revocation.

¶16With respect to costs, we note that Attorney Elliott has not
objected to the statement of costs filed by the OLR.We find no extraordinary circumstances that
would warrant any reduction of the costs, and we impose the full costs of the
proceeding on Attorney Elliott.

¶17Finally, we turn to the issue of restitution.The OLR's complaint requested and the referee
recommended that Attorney Elliott be required to make restitution payments in
the total amount of $1,334,804.26.We
note that Attorney Elliott has never contested the OLR's assertion that he
should pay restitution to the Fund,[18]
to two former clients, and to Associated Bank, nor has he disputed the
requested amounts of restitution.Consequently, we determine that Attorney Elliott should be ordered to
pay restitution to the Fund, to the former clients, and to Associated Bank in
the amounts set forth in the referee's report.

¶18IT IS ORDERED that the license of Peter T. Elliott to practice law
in Wisconsin
is revoked, effective as of the date of this order.

¶19IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date of this
order Peter T. Elliott shall pay restitution in the following amounts to the
following individuals/entities:

¶20IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date of this
order, Peter T. Elliott shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs
of this proceeding.

¶21IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified above is to be
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation.

¶22IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not already done
so, Peter T. Elliott shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning
the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.

[1]SCR 20:8.4(b) provides
it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act that
reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a
lawyer in other respects;... ."

[2]SCR 20:8.4(c) states it
is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;...."

A
lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the lawyer's own property, that
property of clients and 3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in
connection with a representation.All
funds of clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in connection
with a representation shall be deposited in one or more identifiable trust
accounts.

Upon receiving funds
or other property in which a client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest identified by a lien, court
order, judgment, or contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client or
3rd party in writing.Except as stated
in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, the
lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or 3rd party any funds or other
property that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive.

Checks shall be
pre-printed and pre-numbered.The name
and address of the lawyer or law firm, and the name of the account shall be
printed in the upper left corner of the check.Trust account checks shall include the words "Client Account,"
or "Trust Account," or words of similar import in the account
name.Each check disbursed from the
trust account shall identify the client matter and the reason for the
disbursement on the memo line.

[6]SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. provides
that "[n]o disbursement of cash shall be made from a trust account or from
a deposit to a trust account, and no check shall be made payable to 'Cash.'"

[7]SCR 20:1.4(a)(1) states
a lawyer shall "[p]romptly inform the client of any decision or
circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in
SCR 20:1.0(f), is required by these rules;...."

[8] SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) says a
lawyer shall "keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the
matter;...."

[9] SCR 20:1.4(a)(4)
provides that a lawyer shall "promptly comply with reasonable requests by
the client for information;...."

[10] SCR 20:1.15(d)(2)
states, "Upon final distribution of any trust property or upon request by
the client or a 3rd party having an ownership interest in the property, the
lawyer shall promptly render a full written accounting regarding the property."

At least 5 business
days before the date on which a disbursement is made from a trust account for
the purpose of paying fees, with the exception of contingent fees or fees paid
pursuant to court order, the lawyer shall transmit to the client in writing all
of the following:

a. an
itemized bill or other accounting showing the services rendered;

b. notice
of the amount owed and the anticipated date of the withdrawal; and

c. a
statement of the balance of the client's funds in the lawyer trust account
after the withdrawal.

All trust account
records have public aspects related to a lawyer's fitness to practice.Upon request of the office of lawyer
regulation, or upon direction of the supreme court, the records shall be
submitted to the office of lawyer regulation for its inspection, audit, use,
and evidence under any conditions to protect the privilege of clients that the
court may provide.The records, or an
audit of the records, shall be produced at any disciplinary proceeding
involving the lawyer, whenever material.Failure to produce the records constitutes unprofessional conduct and
grounds for disciplinary action.

Upon commencing an
investigation, the director shall notify the respondent of the matter being
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the investigation of the
matter requires otherwise.The
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances
pertaining to the alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served by
ordinary mail a request for a written response.The director may allow additional time to respond.Following receipt of the response, the
director may conduct further investigation and may compel the respondent to
answer questions, furnish documents, and present any information deemed
relevant to the investigation.

In the course of the
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide relevant information,
to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the respondent's
misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of
the matters asserted in the grievance.

[15]SCR 20:8.4(h) provides
it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the
investigation of a grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as
required by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR
22.04(1);...."

[16]For example, the
balance in Attorney Elliott's business account was $3,738.40 at the close of
business on September 30, 2008.On
October 1, 2008, Attorney Elliott disbursed a check in the amount of $665,000
from his business account that was made payable to "Atty. Peter T. Elliott
Trust Account."That same day he
subsequently deposited the check into his trust account.After that deposit, Attorney Elliott then
stopped payment on the business account check.Thus, at the close of business on October 1, 2008, the $665,000 check
had not been presented to the business account, but the balance in the business
account was only $2,029.90, which was $662,970.10 less than the amount of the
check that had been written against that account.

If no appeal is filed
timely, the supreme court shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or remand the matter to the
referee for additional findings; and determine and impose appropriate
discipline.The court, on its own
motion, may order the parties to file briefs in the matter.